Tag Archive | "BREXIT"

NOVANEWS

Yes, BREXIT, despite looking like utter chaos wrapped in a thick blanket of confusion, is actually proceeding exactly how I predicted it would right at the start of the process. I had it figured out because I correctly identified it as a plot by the Judeo-Zionist criminal oligarchy.

The chaos and confusion, the destabilising of the British nation, government and political parties, all of it is an intended result of the BREXIT process.

Make no mistake, I am a firm supporter of getting Britain out of the EU, of restoring sovereignty and control of our immigration policies and orders, to say nothing of ditching the agricultural and economic policies we have had to follow.

However, I have also been aware since the start that the BREXIT chalice is a poisoned one, something that was made most obvious by the choice of Zionist stooges Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, men of little moral fibre who would sell their own mother for a tidy payoff, to lead the BREXIT campaign.

BREXIT has dominated British politics in recent month, almost to the total exclusion of all else; only the farcical Skripal poisoning and the shameful anti-semitic allegations against the Labour Party have made any inroads into the blanket BREXIT news coverage.

No other issue has so totally dominated British politics for at least a generation, to the extent that the British people are absolutely sick to death of BREXIT, they just want to get it over and done with, many saying to hell with the consequences.

The long, drawn out death rattle nature of the BREXIT negotiation process has had the effect of so sickening the British people at the apparent ineptness of the political leadership, of stirring up such disgust at the childish bickering and ruthless politicking of the members of Parliament that faith in the ability of the government to actually govern is at a very low level.

The last ten years of austerity has also done much to erode the faith of the British people in it’s government and supporting bureaucracy. We have seen the gradual loss of innumerable public and private sector services – the police are massively under-resourced and undermanned, the hospitals are struggling to cope, there are critical shortages of doctors and nursing staff, the train services are becoming ever more expensive while ever more unreliable, the road and rail infrastructure is crumbling in places, deteriorating almost everywhere, schools are struggling with class sizes and underfunding, Britain is a country seemingly trapped in a slow, steady decline, a downward spiral of austerity and gradual decay.

Yet there is immense wealth in Britain, we have one of the 5 or 6 largest economies on the planet; at the same time, between one quarter and one fifth of the British population lives below the poverty line.

Incidents like the Grenfell Tower fire and the horrific spate of gang-related violence and knife crime that has beset the inner cities have only served to stir up further resentment and disenfranchisement among the British populace and an ever-growing discontentment with the government and the established order.

Which goes a long way to explaining why BREXIT is happening, why the British people voted to leave the EU. To have this goal hijacked and exploited by the Judeo-Zionist criminal oligarchy is most galling indeed – we will get the BREXIT we desire, but it will be accompanied by all kinds of negative consequences.

I do not know what will happen come March 2019 when BREXIT finally takes place but I remain convinced that it will be far from a peaceful, smooth transition.

Let’s get one thing straight – there is not going to be any BREXIT deal, it will be a hard, no deal BREXIT, this has been inevitable from day one in my eyes as the Euro bureaucracy lead by Tusk and Junker will make sure everything within their power is done to make it as brutal and unpleasant as possible for Britain in order to discourage other European nations from also exiting the EU.

There are disturbing signs that many in the British government and it’s police and military forces share my concerns about the possible problems that BREXIT will bring. A few weeks ago the British Army’s chief spokesman mentioned on the BBC that the army had been training it’s troops to be ready to assist the police in the event of a no-deal BREXIT.

How bad may things get? To be frank, we may see the country disintegrate with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leaving the union and The United Kingdom replaced by the smaller, weakened states of England, Scotland, Wales and Ulster, a balkanised, emasculated Britain.

I also fear a ‘colour revolution’ where the highly disturbing prospect of a stooge such as Boris Johnson being installed at the head of a corrupt oligarchy in much the same manner as the Poroshenko regime came to pass in Ukraine as a result of the Maidan false flag coup. Is it too hard to imagine the snipers firing at both police and protesters scenario being repeated in Parliament Square or Trafalgar Square? Or on the Champs-Elysee or Unter Den Linden or Las Ramblas….

As recent events in France have reminded us, the major European nations – Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and a few others are all ripe for a descent into civil unrest and internal conflict. In Spain, the Catalan independence issue remains unresolved, Germany is a festering mass of discontentment largely fuelled by Merkel’s admission of millions of so-called refugees, the immigrant issue is a major factor fuelling the discontent from Sweden to Italy.

It is clear that underlying this growing wave of discontent is a Judeo-Zionist plot to destabilise the nations of Europe, to Balkanise the continent by creating new independent states from Catalunia and Ulster to Wallonia and Bavaria. This is the well tried and tested strategy of Divide and Conquer that is found in the Protocols of Zion and oft used to control and manipulate the goyim masses.

Ultimately, we could see a third great war envelope the continent; but this will not be a war of massed armies annihilating each other across wide battlefields, the large armies and will of the people to wage such a war no longer exist. The third war will be fought on the streets of Europe’s cities and towns and it will be factional, with a number of factions, both governmental and rebel vying for power amidst a patchwork of ever shifting alliances. Much like the Syrian war in fact, which may be serving a role as a test case, an experiment to define and refine the techniques that will then be applied to Europe.

The Syrian war grew out of the so-called Arab Spring that destabilised many Arab nations and caused regime change in several. I see it as highly likely that the March advent of BREXIT will provide the spark that ignites a similar wave of discontent across Europe in the spring of 2019.

After a period of conflict and violence, the new regimes that will arise will be lead by puppets such as Boris Johnson in England and Marine LePenn in France, right wing governments that will be all too willing to follow the Judeo-Zionist oligarchy’s strategy. I see a ramping up of the antipathy with Russia to the point where a war starts as the next stage in that strategy following the installation of the right wing puppet governments in the wake of the ‘Euro Spring’ that I predict will sweep the continent in 2019.

I hope I’m wrong and being far too pessimistic, but things aren’t looking too good right now….

NOVANEWS

“German government officials haveproposed giving Britain access to the European Union’s singlemarket in return for a fee, …

The 35-page report on the potential costs of Brexit toGermany said Britain’s departure from the EU risked “seriouseconomic and stability relevant consequences; effects inparticular on the real economy.”The ministry officials calculated Berlin would have to payan additional 4.5 billion euros ($5 billion) a year into EUcoffers as a result of Britain’s departure from the bloc.To mitigate the cost, they floated the idea of chargingBritain for access to the single market.

“Such a future financial contribution should be used toalleviate the financial consequences of Brexit (reduction in EUspending or increase in payments for other member states),”Focus quoted the officials as saying. … (Reuters, May 6, 2017)

It’s hilarious! – Germany offering Britain post-BREXIT access to the European market for an annual “fee”! And this, from the looks of it, just so that Germany does not have to pay some US$ 5 billion more into the wasteful kitty of the overloaded, over-paid and incompetent bureaucracy of the EU apparatus in Brussels.

We can only hope BREXIT will be followed by many others, like, for example, FREXIT, France leaving the European Non-Union. It would be the end of the EU which would be a blessing for Europe. Eighty percent of the French want a referendum on France leaving the European Union. It will never happen if Macron becomes President.

How many French, or Europeans for that matter, know that Macron made his rapid political ascent by starting his career with the Rothschild banksters and then was catapulted by Hollande and PM Valls into the position of French Minister of Finance, basically to deregulate everything of the economy that had not yet been deregulated, as well as pushing through a PM decree, the infamous anti-union French Labor law. He is a neoliberal globalist, defending a new-fascist economy. That is not what the media portray, and surely not what the people want.

Today, May 7, as many disenchanted French voters say, there is the choice between the Pest and Cholera, voting for Macron or for Le Pen. But there is indeed another choice – Abstention; showing the powers that be their disgust with ongoing lie-propaganda and resulting politics.

Who do you think has financed the massive propaganda that brought Macron to prominence from an almost unknown past? – The banksters, worldwide, and their interest groups, of course. Globalization must not die. The world hasn’t been sucked entirely dry yet. If France were to exit the system, like the Brits decided almost a year ago, the globalization empire might crumble – with neo-fascism at peril.

Hence, the massive pro-Macron propaganda for tomorrow’s elections, led by Brussels and Washington and the related Big Finance and Industrial interests and lobbyists. – They don’t want a collapse of the EU – the elite on either side benefits greatly from the current system, as usual, at the detriment of the populations.

But back to Britain: The UK does NOT need the EU. In fact, London has already had preliminary talks with China for bilateral agreements. If they materialize, they will most likely encompass more than just China, namely the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which comprises also Russia, most of Central Asia, Pakistan, Iran with India as an aspiring candidate.

If such agreements were to materialize, Britain’s market would be linked to more than half of the world’s population and about a third of the globe’s economic output. There would be no need for the decaying European Union and her faltering western allies. Let’s be clear: The future is in the East. The West is passé.

May we just hope that the Brits will not fall for Germany’s ‘generous’ offer of access to the EU market.

*********

All of this is not to say that a European Union per se would be bad. However, NOT and I repeat NOT under the current premises, under the current set-up. This construct has to be dismantled, the faster the better. It was not even a European idea in the first place, but a CIA initiative just after WWII – and Washington’s objective even before WWII, to create a Continent of Vassals, united in a “Union of European States”, but without a Constitution, therefore without common political goals (a “non-union”), and with one currency, the Euro, that was created according to the same fraudulent principles as the dollar and fully dependent on the dollar, so the new puppet union could be easily economically manipulated and controlled.

It is fraudulent, because money is made by private banks, from thin air, without any backing, therefore ideal for manufacturing crisis after crisis for the benefit of the banksters and the rich.

That’s precisely what has happened. And we, in Europe, are about to wake up. The Brits with BREXIT were first. We can just hope it’s not too late.

A new European Union should be born in Europe, by Europeans and for Europeans – and WITHOUT interference from outside, especially not form Washington. A new Europe should be free to choose her alliances from the east and west without restrictions and without fear of sanctions, for not behaving according to a self-imposed foreign Master’s dictate.

This article was in part based on an interview of the author with Press TV

Posted in Germany, UKComments Off on Brexit – Is Germany Dictating to Britain the After-Brexit Rules? – A Prelude to the French Elections

NOVANEWS

With Article 50 due to be triggered imminently, we might naturally ask ourselves again what it is that the ‘Brexit’ process is meant to lead us towards in the long-run.

‘Shock Doctrine’, Child Poverty, Ultra-Capitalism ‘On Steroids’ and the UK’s potential future as a corporate tax-haven are just part of the picture feared by some. And by the way, TTIP isn’t dead.

In assessing what the underlying motives for ‘Brexit’ might be, we will also need to look at it in the context of what is happening in the United States. And given the sheer amount of brainwashed misconception that appears to be proliferating in terms of both Brexit and Trump, we should also decode why it is that the trendy term “the liberal elite” is such a stroke of Machiavellian genius.

Irrespective of where you stand on Brexit or the EU – and I have always made it clear that I don’t have any loyalty to either camp, but am merely studying the information and trying to understand what is going on from as neutral a position as possible – it is always important to assess the motivations or intentions of whatever forces or alliances are controlling any given course of events.

So, some obvious questions.

For example, why was the Brexit push – at the political level – being conducted virtually exclusively by very wealthy people and almost entirely by right-wing figures (with the possible exception of Boris Johnson, who, as it happens, didn’t actually believe in Brexit)? Why are those controlling the Brexit process so single-mindedly determined to push ahead with it on the whim of only 37% of the electorate (and only a narrow 52% of those who voted – remember that Nigel Farage said on referendum day that if Remain had won by as little as 52% there should be a second referendum), even to the extent of openly trying toblock parliament’s involvement?

This particularly applies to Theresa “Brexit means Brexit” May, who even wanted to resort to ‘royal prerogative’ and the power of the Queen to override parliament. They keep saying that it is because they “respect the will of the people”: since when did Establishment politicians and wealthy sponsors consider themselves bound by the “will of the people”?

I will come back to that phrase – “will of the people” – at the end and explain why I think it is being used so much.

The timing of this – as I pointed out previously – is probably no coincidence: with Brexit coinciding precisely with the election victory of the Trump campaign. The Trump victory, as previously argued here, was essentially – whatever else it might also have been – a coup by most ruthless of the the 1% billionaires and corporate interests. In a guest-post on this blog a few weeks ago, Dr Leon Tressell, expanded further on this theme (read it here: ‘Wolves of Wall Street in a Trumpster Paradise‘) in regard to the Trump campaign, Goldman-Sachs, the Koch brothers and the banksters.

It remains curious that both Brexit and the Trump/Goldman-Sachs victories occurred at the same time – with Trump also constantly likening his campaign to Brexit. On the foreign-policy front, as previously argued, a Britain rid of the EU seems set to re-align more squarely with the US/Israel axis and away from the ‘liberal’ governments that were attempting to block Israeli annexation of all remaining Palestinian land. But it is also set to be about a lot more than that.

And it looks suspiciously that, in effect, ‘Brexit’ might later be talked about in the same context as the deregulation of Wall Street.

It seems curious that Brexit politicians now are so single-minded about pursuing the departure from the EU at all costs, given that, several months ago, leaders from their own party were warning everyone of how disastrous it would be.

This brings to mind something referred to as ‘Disaster Capitalism’.

To start with, it helps to quote some passages from Howard Hotson, who, writing in the The Guardian shortly after the Brexit result, cites some of what Naomi Klein argued in the book The Shock Doctrine. In this instance, he isn’t talking about the global situation or any possible EU collapse, but specifically about how the UK could now move into a more ruthless, ultra-capitalist direction, which some regard as a return to Thatcherism. ‘…Disaster capitalism operates by delivering massive shocks to the system and then using the ensuing period of anarchy, fear and confusion to reassemble the pieces of what it has broken into a new configuration.’

He continued. ‘This is what was done in the aftermath of the financial crisis, and it is ultimately what is at stake in Brexit. The right wing of the Tory party has succeeded in throwing the UK’s affairs into complete confusion. The losses may be enormous: the preservation of the United Kingdom in its present form is far from certain. The winnings may, at first sight, seem modest: £350m a week will not be available to save the NHS; the free movement of labour will have to be conceded; and Britain will lose its place at the EU negotiating table. But the potential winnings for ruthless politicians are nevertheless enormous: the prize is the opportunity to rework an almost infinite range of detailed arrangements both inside and outside the UK, to redraw at breakneck speed the legal framework that will govern all aspects of our lives….’

He continues, ‘As Andy Beckett pointed out in the Guardian on Friday, within minutes of the BBC declaring victory for Brexit, the free-market thinktank the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) revealed the plan B that has otherwise remained hidden from view. “The weakness of the Labour party and the resolution of the EU question have created a unique political opportunity to drive through a wide-ranging revolution on a scale similar to that of the 1980s. This must include removing unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses, such as those related to climate directives and investment fund[s]”.’

Also noted was the speed with which the post-Cameron Tory leaders have wanted to push ahead with a Hard Brexit, despite a divided parliament and a divided nation and despite some of them having themselves been pro-Remain just weeks earlier. ‘One of the most startling aspects of the Brexit debate is the rapidity with which the Conservatives have set it behind them. The referendum was manifestly won on the basis of misinformation, and puts the UK in an extremely dangerous situation… Yet among the candidates to succeed Cameron, even former remainers are now voting leave. “Brexit means Brexit,” Theresa May stated on joining the race on Thursday. “There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it through the back door, and no second referendum.” All the bloodshed in the Tory leadership contest masks an underlying consensus: they are all determined to block every exit from Brexit.’

The question is why. That’s not how the political establishment usually operates. It’s certainly not how democratic political systems usually operate. Is it really all for the sake of honoring the “will of the people”? And only 37% of “the people”, at that?

The likelihood is that an anti-EU vote that was, for a lot of people, driven by an aversion to an apparently undemocratic EU, is actually the genius sleight of hand that allows for a swift march towards mass deregulation and ultra-capitalism controlled by a Conservative government that will now be much more slanted towards its right-wing than it was in the Cameron era.

And everyone who decided that foreigners and migrants – rather than government policies – were the cause of all their problems might eventually have to come to terms with the fact what they’ve chosen is what some predicted would be an inevitable return to Thatcherism.

None of this would be entirely surprising: it is, after all, a programme being pursued by the right-wing of the Conservative Party (including UKIP, which is the right-right-wing of the Conservative Party). Regardless of the pros or cons of leaving the EU or remaining in the EU, the general consensus of what Brexit might amount to is starting to emerge – and it is very difficult not to see it as something that goes curiously hand-in-hand with what happened in the US in November; particularly as, sticking with the ‘return to Thatcherism’ meme, the US now has a president that Republicans kept telling us could be a “new Reagan”.

In fact,some of the main figures populating the Trump administration are people who make Ronald Reagan look like an old softy.

Though not as bad as some of the Trump figures, many of the major Leave campaigners were highly questionable figures themselves (ranging from hardcore right-wingers and pleb-haters like Ian Duncan Smith and wealthy aristocrats like Jacob Rees-Mogg – pictured below with Farage – to Israeli-funded playboys like Liam Fox and corporate tycoons like Rupert Murdoch), while Nigel Farage is an ex-banker and broker who also operated an off-shore tax-haven to avoid contributing thousands in tax to help the services in the country he supposedly loves so much.

These aren’t people who typically care a great deal about the plight of “the people”; they are typically people, however, who know how easy it is to whip the plebs up into a nationalistic, tribalistic frenzy over foreigners, ‘sovereignty’ and the flag, in order to harness those forces in the service of other agendas.

Elites have played this strategy throughout history; the Romans were masters at it and it is probably actually the oldest trick in the book.

The plain fact is – and people should always realise this – that the referendum would never have been offered to us unless some section of the Establishment would have something to gain from it going a certain way. The genius maneuver, however, from both the traditional right-wing press and the newer ‘alt-right’ media has been to brainwash vast amounts of people into adopting the buzz-phrase “the liberal elite” in order to trick particularly gullible people into forgetting all about the conservative elite – which is the true ‘elite’ as it is the older and original elite.

This applies both to the UK and the United States – and to every other country too. But, bafflingly, so many of those being zealously caught up in the ‘we’re defeating the new world order’ psy-op are extraordinarily of the belief that their salvation lies with the Old Elites – in order to protect them from the newer, so-called ‘liberal elite’.

In other words, this great ‘revolt’ against ‘globalism’ and the NWO consists of worshiping and trusting the traditional elite that has been there for centuries – and vilifying and trying to defeat the newer ‘liberal elite’ that has been there for about five minutes.

It is very clever – even if a very old strategy. And the Trump/Goldman-Sachs/Breitbart campaign in America played essentially the same strategy. In their case, it was even easier, because the Democrats had decided to suppressthe popular candidate – Bernie Sanders – in order to prop-up an actual ‘liberal elite’ candidate in the form of the corrupt and hugely unpopular Hillary Clinton.

But all of this, far from being the ‘anti establishment’ maneuver that so many people think it is, is actually likely to be mere sleight-of-hand: simply jettisoning one perceived establishment for the sake of the other, older establishment.

And – before I start getting the same hate-mail as before for questioning Brexit – let me make it clear that I am not saying the EU is great or that Brexit is necessarily wrong. And, of course, the EU itself is dominated (and undermined) by its own ‘elites’ too – I’m simply saying that portraying Brexit as being an act ‘against the elites’ is a nonsense.

Again, on the theme of ‘disaster capitalism’, a grim picture is also painted of what post-Brexit Britain might look like. ‘Many thought that the near meltdown of the global financial system would prompt a comprehensive rethink of the principles underlying global capitalism. Instead, it was exploited to de-fund social welfare provision on a grand scale, prompting much of the anger wrongly vented against migrants during the referendum… George Osborne has now proposed to cut corporation tax from 20% to below 15%, to staunch the haemorrhage of investment. During coming months and years, the unfolding crisis will provide countless pretexts for similar emergency measure that benefit business and roll back the state. So there will be no vote in parliament, no second referendum, no fresh elections: just the most massive legislative programme in history within the current parliament, in which the Tories command an absolute majority based on 37% of the votes cast in the last general election. So much for taking back democratic control.’

In fact, it is feared by many – and hoped by others – that departure from the EU is poised to turn the UK into a corporate ‘tax haven’.

Chancellor Philip Hammond has essentially said this himself; and, in fairness to him, he doesn’t seem particularly enthusiastic about it.

‘Theresa May is ready to turn the UK into a low-tax, low-regulation haven after Brexit, her spokesperson confirmed today,’ the Business Insider recentlyreported.

A recent article by Cambridge lecturer Jeremy Green worries that the ‘tax haven model’ will actually threaten or jeapordise the UK’s social model. ‘The threat of a tax haven model would be an adoption of the “race to the bottom” approach to globalisation. This strategy views cutting tax rates, regulation and often labour rights, as the surest means to attract internationally mobile capital… This would put pressure on EU members to similarly lower their tax rates or provide other business-friendly incentives in order to remain competitive. And this would jeopardise their commitment to the existing social model, which balances economic growth with high living standards and working conditions for all… Opting for this strategy would also signal the UK’s disregard for global inequality. It would be defining its position in the world as a home for the assets of wealthy corporations and individuals that seek to avoid taxation.’

While the Brexit government seems likely to pursue policies kinder to bankers and corporations than to social services or workers’ rights, the new US administration – populated by Goldman-Sachs people and Wall Street wolves – is openly poised to go down the same path, as it is dominated by billionaires with a generally dim view (according to their own statements) of banking regulations, welfare, social housing, affordable health care, and environmental regulations.

The previous Conservative (Coalition) government – from 2010 to 2015 – was itself widely attacked for its relentless, merciless welfare cuts and its perceived abandonment of the most vulnerable sections of society (leading to, among other things, an apparent epidemic of suicides that were directly related to the cuts). But a ‘Brexit’ Tory party, now further to the right of the spectrum, could be setting itself up to go even further.

Days ago, it was reported that Theresa May’s welfare cuts ‘will help push almost one million more children into relative poverty by 2022 and two thirds of those affected will live in working households’; this being according to the latest projections from the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Astonishingly, the PM recently claimed the Conservatives were the “party of the workers” (not dissimilar, perhaps, to Trump selling his campaign as the fight-back of the working-class) – which, even by ‘post-fact’ standards, was a pretty stunning statement.

Ironically, the opposition leader – Jeremy Corbyn – is, from all evidence – and regardless of whether he is polished enough or media-savvy enough to win an election (which he probably isn’t) – the one legitimately concerned with workers’ rights (a theme he has been centered on ever since becoming Labour Party leader), but most of the media and the political establishment – egged on by the anti-Corbyn Israeli lobbies – is too busy trying to discredit or undermine him, meaning that Theresa May and the current Tory Brexit government (Snooper’s Charter and all) is getting a free pass.

The IFS projects that the number of children in relative poverty will rise by 900,000 to 5.1 million by 2021-22.

Again, a similar strategy by the Old Elite in the United States is running precisely parallel to the Brexit scenario. As Noam Chomsky wrote shortly after the presidential election; ‘The Republicans have moved so far toward a dedication to the wealthy and the corporate sector that they cannot hope to get votes on their actual programs, and have turned to mobilizing sectors of the population that have always been there, but not as an organized coalitional political force: evangelicals, nativists, racists and the victims of the forms of globalization designed to set working people around the world in competition with one another while protecting the privileged and undermining the legal and other measures that provided working people with some protection, and with ways to influence decision-making in the closely linked public and private sectors, notably with effective labor unions.’

Even red herrings that were previously being thrown into the mix as symptoms of the evils of Globalisation have in fact been completely skewed in people’s minds. TTIP, for example, was being cited by some as a globalist (and therefore EU) conspiracy: when, in fact, much of the opposition to TTIP was coming from Europe.

It is particularly interesting that a number of both experts and activists were warning for weeks prior to the referendum that TTIP would be much MORE likely to come to Britain in the event of a Brexit than if the UK had remained in the European Union. There was already a great deal of opposition to TTIP in the EU (particularly in both Germany and France), both among politicians and moreover the general public, and it was by no means clear whether TTIP would get the green light in Europe.

It was also, more or less exclusively, alliances of Left-leaning groups and activists that were primarily opposing TTIP, with relative silence on the matter from the Right. As blogger Kitty S Jones arguedin June, ‘The TTIP deal was supposed to be signed by now – but together, the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group and Europe’s people have seriously stalled things. Would it really be possible to stop such a move if we couldn’t link up with campaigners across Europe? If being in the EU has brought us TTIP, it has also brought us the means to stop it. Labour MEPs fought hard to secure support within the EU to get the toxic Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause removed from the TTIP at the negotiating table last year.’

This point about the value of Britain remaining at the EU table and of progressives in the UK being able to join forces with progressives elsewhere in Europe (to fight not only TTIP, but to force key reforms in the EU in general – essentially the argument that was being made by Jeremy Corbyn at the time) is essentially the position that was taken by economist and former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis and others, who took the view that a weakening or collapse of the EU was destined to lead to Far-Right takeovers and a return to fascism (he didn’t mean fascism in Britain, but in parts of Europe).

Far from opposing TTIP, Nick Dearden rightly pointed out in April last year that ‘the British government has done everything possible to push the most extreme version of TTIP, just as they’ve fought against pretty much every financial regulation, from bankers bonuses to a financial transaction tax. While Germany and France were concerned about TTIP’s corporate court system – which allows foreign business to sue governments for “unfair” laws like putting cigarettes in plain packets – the UK secretly wrote to the European commission president demanding he retain it.‘

Dearden continued, ‘Every scenario for Brexit is premised on extreme free trade agreements coupled with looser regulation to make us more competitive. “Outcompeting” the EU through lower standards is the strategy. There’s every reason to think that Brexit will turn the UK into a paradise for free market capitalism: a TTIP on steroids.’

It was also being argued that it was Britain’s ultra-capitalist ambitions that were causing problems for Europe. Further back, in 2013, the British TUC even described Britain as “exporting their anti-worker position into Europe and it is spreading like a bad outbreak of gastric flu”.

TTIP, by the way, appears not to be dead and buried, as some think it is: it has simply undergone a name-change and now appears to be the ‘Trade In Services Agreement’ (TISA), regarded as being worse than TTIP and more secretive.

______________

The point here is not necessarily that Brexit is a bad idea in principle: or that there aren’t good reasons to leave the EU (and about as many fair reasons to stay in too). The point is to ask why specifically is Britain leaving the EU?

What purposes does it serve? In whose interests is it? If the above analyses hold true, it may be that the lower-grade rank-and-file of Leave voters – specifically the ones who wanted “Polish vermin” out and wanted to send navy ships to “torpedo refugee boats” – simply had their basest passions and prejudices manipulated and harnessed by special interests and forces that were only really interested in their own, private agendas.

That precise same dynamic could be true of the Trump campaign in the US – which, it may turn out, was a mirror of Brexit; and with both being heavily propagandised for by both the corporate right-wing press and also the alt-right media (the latter in particular going to great lengths to paint both as some ‘great victory’ of the ‘common people’ against the ‘new world order’ – seriously, anyone who is still going around with the words “liberal elite” on their lips should be wearing a dunce’s hat).

The best part is that any negative impact of Brexit on the population – such as any potential recession, austerity, job losses, etc, or just massive welfare cuts or a rapid diminishing of workers’ rights – can now be fully blamed on the voters themselves, because they chose the Brexit: and were warned over and over again by most mainstream or establishment politicians and experts that it would be a bad idea.

This, I would suggest, is why the Brexit government is constantly using that phrase – “the will of the people”; it is designed to free the actual politicians and the sponsors involved from any sense of responsibility for what Brexit leads to and to make it clear that it was “the will of the people” that they were merely honoring.

It’s very clever; and, if true, then the rank-and-file Brexit enthusiasts who keep shouting “the will of the people!” are actually operating against their own best interests.

But it wouldn’t be the first time.

Posted in UKComments Off on BREXIT: The Greatest Trick the Old Elites Ever Pulled…?

NOVANEWS

Yesterday British Prime Minister Theresa May signed a letter addressed to the EU, informing the EU that Britain is invoking its right under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to quit the EU, thereby formally commencing Britain’s Brexit process

Today that letter was hand delivered by the British government to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, and to the rest of the EU leadership in Brussels

Here is the full text of the letter:

On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.

Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.

Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50 (2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.

This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.

The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.

I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.

The process in the United Kingdom

As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.

From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.

Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union

The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.

It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.

Proposed principles for our discussions

Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.

We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation. Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.

We should always put our citizens first. There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.

We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement. We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.

We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible. Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.

In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.

We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges. Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.

We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values. Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.

The task before us

The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.

Posted in Europe, UKComments Off on BREXIT: Full text of Britain’s farewell letter

NOVANEWS

From Strategic Culture Foundation comes areport that Britain could lose its independent nuclear deterrent with the possibility of even handing it over lock, stock and barrel to the EU.

“With Donald Trump leading the United States, Europe seems to be losing trust in the American nuclear umbrella. As the EU focuses on the need to have its own military, the issue of European nuclear deterrent comes to the fore. The debate has been triggered. This issue is intensively discussed in Germany. The nuclear deterrence plan is eyeing France, proposing to turn the French nuclear potential into a European nuclear deterrent. It is believed that Germany could play a decisive role in convincing France, and may be the UK, to provide security guarantees for all of Europe. Under such a plan, Europe would become independent from the US.”

The story is written by a Colonel Andrei Akulov a retired, Moscow-based expert on international security issues. I’m not sure of the validity of this information or not, after all, he is Russian – and we all know what that means!

A second paper byStrategic Defence Initiatives, written up as an exclusive by UK Column Newsseems to confirm this news. They quote Max Hofmann of Deutsche Welle, an award winning journalist and presenter on 20 January 2017 who saying

“Everything must now be put on the table — from higher [EU] military spending to a British-French nuclear defense shield for the continent.“

“The recent British referendum has made no difference to the speed and tenacity with which the Conservative Government under Prime Minister Theresa May and Secretary of State for Defence Sir Michael Fallon (a strong EU advocate and former EU Movement supporter) are continuing the path to EU military union. There has been no change in the advancing integration of UK military forces into the EU structure — the subject is simply not discussed in political, public and media forums, which is testimony to the usual EU policy of implementation by stealth where possible.”

Strategic Defence Initiatives goes further:

“Perhaps most dangerous here is the rapid integration of the EU commercial military procurement and supply chain, operating under an EU treasury already being declared and implemented. Once locked together under EU procurement rules, and with ‘joint interoperability’ doctrine driving pan-EU military needs, Britain will be further stripped of its ability to design, build and supply our own weapons systems and munitions. This will further strengthen the EU political tactic of creating ‘interdependence’ between EU member states as a tool for removing sovereign identity and the ability to act as an independent nation state.”

The validity of this report is also under question as UK Column did not respond to an email requesting further information about the author from Strategic Defence Initiatives who seems to run an online shop from a farm and is elusive to say the least. Is this ‘fake news’?

However, Reuters News Agency hasconfirmed that Europe is thinking about developing its own nuclear deterrent strategy given concerns that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump could scale back U.S. military commitments in Europe.

Roderich Kiesewetter, foreign policy spokesman and senior member of Angela Merkel’s conservatives told Reuters that Germany should convince nuclear powers France and Britain to provide security guarantees for all of Europe.

Kieswetter continues

“Europe must start planning for its own security in case the Americans sharply raise the cost of defending the continent, or if they decide to leave completely.”

Given that all these reports emerge post Brexit, are we looking at deeper European integration irrespective of ‘taking our country back’ which the British people voted for back last June.

It appears so. Kiesewetter said a Franco-British nuclear umbrella for Europe could be financed through a joint European military budget that is due to begin in 2019, along with joint European medical, transportation and reconnaissance commands.

Some three decades ago, London and Paris would have been more than flattered to be chosen as the defenders of the European continent. One would have thought that Britain’s decision to leave the EU would have blown that idea out of the water but it appears not.

Kiesewetter’s comment came before the announcement that EU Foreign and defence ministers approved a Brussels-based command centre for what looks like the beginnings of an EU army, which has great support in France, Italy and Germany.

“There are some indications that the EU Army’s formation has occurred far more rapidly than the public realises, and in some cases is actively concealed. In 2015 European People’s Party president Joseph Daul told journalists that “We are going to move towards an EU army much faster than people believe.”

The BBC have also confirmed in a recent report that part of the EU Commission’s presidentannual state of the union address was devoted to the UK’s unexpected vote to leave the EU and the formation of an EU military force.

We now know that not only were plans for an EU army well underway, the British government along with its EU counterparts took the decision to hide this informationuntil after the Brexit referendum and even announced the power grab by the EU the following day to the bury the news.

This was confirmed by a Times news article entitled “EU army plans kept secret from voters” which reported that “to prevent the policy paper leaking and derailing David Cameron’s campaign to keep Britain in the EU, the plans will not be sent to national governments until the day after Britain votes (in the EU referendum).

The plans, drawn up by the EU’s foreign policy chief are supported by Germany and other countries as the first step towards an EU army that is already gaining pace. It is clear that the EU now dreams not just of its own army but its own nuclear deterrent, such as Trident.

In a newspaper interview, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, chairman of Poland’s ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS), has called for a European nuclear superpower.

One should not forget the rapidly changing geo-political chessboard either. Britain’s nuclear deterrent is the ageing Trident system. It is designed, built and maintained by America so is the software that manages it. Britain simply leases it from them. The USA now considers Britain a pawn with waning influence in the EU Bloc of the remaining 27 nations. What choice does Britain have if the Americans demand that Britain provides this so-called ‘nuclear umbrella’ for Europe.

What this does confirm though is that the so-called ‘rules based world order’

The Heritage Foundation writes:

“Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear weapons posture has undergone a dramatic change. The U.S. has withdrawn about 90 percent of its forward-deployed nuclear weapons from Europe. In 2012, the Obama Administration initiated the Life Extension Program (LEP) for the B61 tactical nuclear weapon, which is the last nuclear weapon the U.S. keeps in Europe and the only remaining tactical nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal.”

Fears that Russia has now surpassed the United States in nuclear ferocity and capability are not completely unfounded either. Business Insider reported a few months back that “on paper, newer, more complicated, more fearsome weapons comprise Russia’s nuclear arsenal.”

It may be in the end that Britain’s nuclear deterrent will be used in the Brexit negotiations to thrash out a better overall deal given that pressure could easily be applied by Washington. It may be that with a continually more assertive stance taken by Russia the move to consolidate Britain’s nuclear systems with France to provide a European wide defence umbrella is logical. Britain can barely afford to lease Trident, let alone buy its own system and who would sell it to Britain anyway?

Brexit, Trump, Russia and Europe has shifted the geo-political pieces on the chessboard to such an extent we really do not know what the final outcome will be both politically and economically. One thing you can sure of though is that Britain’s defence forces have been reduced to such an extent that it no longer has the resources to protect itself in the event of a major conflict. That being the case, it is unnerving to think that Britain’s nuclear deterrent is on the negotiating table right now.

Posted in UKComments Off on Will Britain Be Handing Over Its Nuclear Deterrent As Part Of The Brexit Deal with the EU?

NOVANEWS

This is the transcript of an interview with Alex Knyazev from Russia TV24.

The occasion is the recent UK Parliament’s go-ahead for BREXIT – despite the massive pressure to reserve the people’s democratic choice. Today’s terror act on London’s Westminster bridge that left so far four people dead and many injured, may be another false flag to show the Brits that terror is everywhere and that they are better off staying within the confines of the protective EU. – My god! The protective EU. The destructive and genocidal EU! – Just look what they are doing to Greece.

Russia TV24: What does Brexit mean in terms of globalization?

Peter Koenig: Brexit is a clear sign that globalization doesn’t work. The common people have not only NOT benefited from ‘globalization’ – as they were purported to have done – but, to the contrary, they have suffered, some people tremendously – famine, more corporate monopolies that destroyed local farming and businesses – especially those in poor developing countries – and they continue to suffer throughout the world.

The Brits have had the courage to voice their discontent in a referendum last June which run against their government’s policy – as the UK – as a perfect vassal of Washington’s, as well as a mole for the US within the European Union – has always been a staunch supporter of globalization. The people have felt differently. And the government so distant of the people, hasn’t noticed it. This is the case in many other European countries.

The people of the UK who voted BREXIT – against the EU – are representative for the majority of people in the rest of Europe. If a similar referendum would be held today in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Hungary – and many more EU countries – the outcome would be similar. According to different polls, between 60% and 80% of the European people – not their puppet governments, but the people – would vote to get out of the EU and out of the Euro.

Russia TV24: What challenges might face the British economy after Brexit?

Peter Koenig: I think the hype, that the British economy will suffer from BREXIT, is just pure anti-BREXIT propaganda, largely driven by Washington and Brussels. Of course, BREXIT might inspire other countries to do likewise. Such lie-propaganda that the British economy will suffer, should intimidate other potential independence seekers. As we have seen, since the BREXIT vote, after an initial slump, the stock market recovered rapidly and today is as strong as always. And the anti-EU movements within Europe, Eurext, have rapidly proliferated.

At the very most, but not for sure at all, there might be some initial setbacks for the UK economy, when the actual separation takes place. But that only because Brussels wants to show its rubber teeth, indicating to other countries not to do likewise. But in the medium and definitely long run BREXIT is a clear winner for the British economy and the British people. The Brits will be free to enter into trade agreements with whomever they want and at whatever terms they sovereignly negotiate – without interference from Brussels.

In fact, the UK will be able to negotiate separately with each EU country trade and other bilateral or international business or intellectual exchange agreements. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, is the best example for this. Switzerland has currently more than 120 bilateral agreements with the EU and members of the EU – which makes her a de facto EU member, though de jure shenis not, and maintains her full sovereignty.

None of the EU members have kept their sovereignty, not politically, nor in terms of monetary policy. The latter is a tremendous drawback, as we see today – the Euro is obviously not sustainable; which for most serious economists was clear from the get-go. You cannot have a common currency for a group of countries that are not even united with a common constitution, let alone with common political goals and a common foreign policy agenda. There is no solidarity among EU countries – Greece is a case in point.

Russia TV24: How might it influence the relations with China who was thought to be interested in Britain being in the EU? Some English experts say industry might be damaged because of trade tariffs.

Peter Koenig: As far as I can see, not being a EU member will not interfere in any way with the UK’s relation with China. Quite to the contrary. Once BREXIT is completed, the Brits are free to make their own deals with China. First moves in this direction, I understand, have already been initiated through China’s President Xi. Let’s not forget, China represents not only the People’s Republic of China, but the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or SCO, which includes also Russia, Iran, most of Eurasia, the Central Asian countries (former Soviet Republics), as well as soon also India and Pakistan. This represents half the world’s population, and more than one third of the world’s GDP.

In addition, there is OBOR – the huge One Belt – One Road project – also called the New Silk Road initiative by China’s President Xi Jinping. This is one gigantic economic development belt for at least the next century – covering infrastructure for transport by land and sea, telecommunication, energy, agricultural and industrial development – as well as cutting edge research projects and emerging, interconnected university-type education schemes. OBOR aims at linking Vladivostok with Lisbon and Shanghai with Hamburg – and everything in between. The East is where the future lays, at least for the coming 100 years or more. The west is passé. Self-destroyed by wars for greed and power. Not recoverable. Not in the foreseeable, nor in the distant future.

The UK is now at least in theory free to join President’s Xi’s invitation to Europe – actually presented to Madame Merkel some three years ago – to join the New Silk Road initiative. Washington vassals Germany and the EU don’t dare to orient themselves East – yet. But the time will come when there is no alternative, because the west with its corrupt economy, fraudulent dollar based monetary system has no future. A constant drive for wars and conflicts – an economy built on death and destruction – has clearly and fortunately no future.

Britain will now be free to join OBOR, if they so decide – and if they dare to pull loose from the fangs of Washington. Maybe by doing that, they could also inspire the rest of Europe to follow. – So – I can see only positive consequences for Britain’s exit from the European Union, Of course, they still need perseverance, a lot of it, because from now to then, there are many hurdles, many opposing forces, who still want to reverse the BREXIT vote. But the major decisions even within the British Parliament, have already been taken. So, it’s merely a matter of time.

Russia TV24: How would the [UK] living standards be changed?

Peter Koenig: Considering the above – not at all. In fact, we have seen since BREXIT, as mentioned before, a quick recovery of the stock market, after an initial free fall. Let’s face it, these security moves are all speculative, carried out by banksters to make extra profit. So, they are no indication actually on how well or how badly an economy functions. In the case of the UK its clear – Britain is doing very well.

As far as living standards are concerned, they will most likely improve, simply because the Brits will no longer have to deal with Brussels’ rules and regulations. They will follow their own, thereby saving a lot of unnecessary costs. Such savings plus a less bureaucratic life for everybody, would certainly tend to increase living standards.

Russia TV24: How will the EU experience Brexit? Some experts say that financial centers as Frankfurt, Paris or even Madrid might strengthen their positions, whereas London might lose. What do you think?

Peter Koenig: First, I believe the EU will not survive much longer, with or without BREXIT.

Second, as long as she, the EU, teeters along, the financial centers, Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid will remain what they are – or maybe even lose out to a free London. Remember, the financial center London has existed long before the EU, and it is run by the Rothschild et al clan – always has. They will not let go. To the contrary, as a free – as in free from Brussels’ dictate, financial center – London may pick up steam and get closer to Asia – the Asian up-and coming market of economic growth, as discussed before through OBOR and related investment requirements.

As long as the UK seizes the opportunity breaking free of the corrupt and incompetent apparatus in Brussels, London will remain an important financial hub for the world. Possibly even THE financial hub of the west, of those in the west who want to get closer to the EAST – and her axis of economic development potential.

Russia TV24: What is your view on the Scottish referendum, what are the chances that it will happen?

Peter Koenig: There is no doubt in my mind that the Scottish referendum will happen. In fact, a few days ago, the Scottish PM, Nicola Sturgeon, announced that she will seek through the Scottish Parliament the procedures for the referendum to break loose from the UK; a referendum to take place in late 2018, or early 2019.

On the occasion of the BREXIT vote in June 2016, Scotland voted with 62% to remain in the EU, while as a whole 54% of Brits decided for BREXIT. This, possibly a majority of Scots believe will destabilize Scotland, therefore it would be better to seek independence from the UK, and possibly independent adherence to the EU.

Will the Scottish people vote yes in such a repeat-referendum this time? In 2014, the Scots voted 55% against 45% to stay with the UK. The situation has now changed. So, it’s entirely possible that the vote of a future referendum may also change.

In these turbulent times, between now and the fall of 2018 or Spring of 2019, earliest dates foreseen for such a referendum – a lot can happen. There will be crucial elections this year in France and Germany – and possibly even Italy. – Will these upcoming elections change the face and fate of the EU? – And if so, how? – All of that may affect a Scottish referendum. If there is no longer a EU to apply to – what then? Might it then be politically and economically more advantageous to continue as a part of the UK, help the UK to become stronger in her new role as an independent and fully sovereign country – possibly orienting herself gradually towards east?

Russia TV24: What would be the consequences for Britain, Scotland and the EU in case Scotland votes to stay with the EU?

Peter Koenig: Not so fast. First the referendum would not be to stay or not to stay in the EU, but to stay or not to stay with the UK. Only once this issue has been resolved, and the Scotts would indeed choose to become independent from the UK, only then could they seek membership with the EU. Such terms would then have to be separately negotiated with Brussels.

It’s way too early to say what would happen if —-. The dynamics can go in many directions. Even in case the Scots would decide to split form the UK, the terms of the EU – in case it then still exists – may not be at all favorable to Scotland. So even then, Scotland could easily decide to also stay independent and carry on with sovereign bilateral trade deals with her partners of choice.

The bottom line of BREXIT and the consequences is that a clear sign is being sent to the world that a large majority of people are tired of what is called Globalization and for which a New World Order is being prepared, i.e. a One World Order – or One Government, gradually but firmly doing away with all the cultural riches and differences between countries, seeking a boring uniformity à la Anglo-Saxon non-culture.

This should definitely not happen. And the signals are clear that it won’t.

NOVANEWS

Last year a coalition of 175 civil society organisationscriticisedBritain for an “increasing concern that the UK’s political rhetoric will, if not checked, threaten the coherence and credibility of the post-second world war human rights settlement.” They were not wrong. Then, the United Nations stated that a “high proportion of the 132 recommendations from the last UN hearings in 2012 have not been implemented by Britain.”

For anyone waiting for politician’s to work together to make Britain great again after Brexit, don’t hold your breath. The politicians are not in control of proceedings. Britain will not join the European Economic Area (EEA) agreement (such as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway), jurisdiction of the European court will end and with it uncontrolled immigration from the EU. Brexit means Brexit. Maybe, maybe not.

Critics will change their tune from “the lack of a plan” to “the wrong plan”. The noise will continue for years to come. The Tories will fight each other, Labour will do the same, and will effectively hand the Tories with another victory at the next election whilst providing no real opposition. No other political party of note will rise. The centre ground is abandoned even though both claim it and one-party politics will reign for years to come. Maybe.

One thing we can be sure of is that a secretive network of business lobbyists who have cast their dark shadow over American politics and way of life, with tentacles reaching deeply into the British Conservative party areplanning and plotting a Brexit that plays directly into their hands. Brexit is their big opportunity. And that is a definite.

Human Rights legislation, as the government have already confirmed, will be replaced with a “British Bill of Rights” and long, hard fought over civil rights and civil liberties will become ‘civil maybe’s’. Surveillance is a good example. Britain is already the most surveilled country not just in the western world but the entire planet due to its scale and sophistication not yet acquired by other countries. Privacy is no longer a civil liberty but is now shrouded in ambiguous laws, in other words a ‘civil maybe’. The government does not design or manufacture surveillance systems, corporations do. Hundreds of private companies and government agencies have access to your personal data. You as a citizen no longer know what privacy you are entitled to.

A new type of politics is being fostered that will be even more destructive to the welfare of what was once considered a free and open society. Another example is the NHS. The NHS is not being made more efficient by government to save money, it is being starved of cash to create a crisis that allows private corporations to solve the problem and profit from it. Health care in Britain is no longer a civil right because it depends on what you are suffering from and where you live and if the NHS has enough resources to apply it to you personally – now your health service is a civil maybe.

Not sure if access to healthcare in Britain is a civil right? “If you are ill or injured, there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone – not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live.” – The New NHS: Modern, Dependable –Government White Paper, December 1997. “If the right to health is considered as a fundamental human right, significant differences in access to health care and the health status of individuals must be seen as violations of the principle of equality” –Implications of a Right to Health– Virginia A. Leary, 1993.

It is important to distinguish the difference between “civil rights” and “civil liberties.” The legal area known as “civil rights” has traditionally revolved around a basic right to be free from unequal treatment based upon certain proscribed protected characteristics such as race, gender, disability, etc, in environments such as employment and housing. “Civil liberties” are different because they protect basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed. These are explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights (in Britain, originally 1689) and the Bill of Rights (of America), and Civil Liberties and Justice and Convention of Human Rights (of the European Union) or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties more or less revolve around:

Freedom of speech

The right to privacy

The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home

The right to a fair court trial

The right to marry

The right to vote

With Brexit the corporations now have the upper hand as never before and the list of rights and liberties we are rightly accustomed to are now under attack as they have been for about two decades.

The American government under Trump now have the corporations in government, turning government itself into a kind of new corporation, which is now staffed, run and managed by business executives and lobbyists. These same corporations have an eye on Britain and an eye on reducing civil rights and civil liberties to achieve their aims.

Two years ago, the UK was well known to have reached Victorian-style inequality, housing the poorest people in western Europe, a claim never strongly denied by politicians that remains unchallenged to this day.

The Homelessness Act 2002 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It amends the Housing Act 1996 and sets out the duties owed by local housing authorities to someone who is homeless or even threatened with homelessness. In 2005, the government of the day stated that “Every person has the right to a secure home; there is no place for homelessness in today’s society.”

In 2010 a change of government occurred with a typically Thatcherite ideology. Today, homelessness is now a part of every day life. It has a number of descriptions to camouflage the reality. We have statutory homelessness (quarterly gov’t statistics), hidden homelessness (unofficial estimates), squatting, sofa surfing and sleeping rough. You could include ‘temporary accommodation’ as the right to housing includes the right to a permanent place to live. Hundreds of thousands are affected.

As it turns out Homeless.Org estimates that 14 per cent of the adult population of Britain have personally experienced homelessness. The biggest reason (followed by not being wanted in the household) was that an Assured Tenancy agreement came to an end. The average age of homelessness is 35 and sleeping rough has doubled from 2010 to 2015 (last known reliable data).

Homelessness in all its forms, no matter how described, is now no longer a civil right but a civil maybe. You can either afford it or you can’t. The law no longer protects the very people it was designed to protect even though the law exists.

Thatcher and Reagan successfully colluded to deregulate the financial services industry, this is why property has been fully ‘financialised’ by the banks and we have a housing crisis in the first place.

Prior to 1984, a person could not be held by police for longer than 24 hours without a criminal charge being made against them. Successive government’s have eroded this civil right. Since then we have managed to allow indefinite detention of non British citizens ‘suspected’ of committing terrorist acts, where there was not enough evidence to proceed to a court of law. This civil right is no longer a right – indeed it is barely a maybe.

In September 2015 David Cameron said “Magna Carta is something every person in Britain should be proud of, its remaining copies may be faded, but its principles shine as brightly as ever, in every courtroom and every classroom, from palace to parliament to parish church. Liberty, justice, democracy, the rule of law – we hold these things dear, and we should hold them even dearer for the fact that they took shape right here, on the banks of the Thames.”

Hear, Hear you say. With some irony just one week later David Cameron authorised and then announcedthe execution without trial of two British citizens. Irrespective of your views about Briton’s heading off to Syria or wherever and fighting as Jihadists or whatever, it was never David Cameron’s legal right to assassinate anyone, let alone British citizens without trial. Cameron even achieved this without permission in another sovereign state. This act is known as ‘extra-judicial killing’ and is illegal by any definition internationally. Just because the American’s do it, doesn’t make it lawful. The right to life is now no longer a civil liberty, it is now a civil maybe.

In 2013 the Coalition government and parliament approved legislation to apply Secret Courts in civil cases. What this meant was that if a citizen takes the British government or its officials to court in cases such as; torture, rendition, or a whole host of other reasons, the government is able to present evidence to the judge which the claimant, defendant, media and public will never be privy to. These secret courts allows government to resist scrutiny in such cases.

The British Army’s most senior lawyer said “The justice and security bill has one principal aim and that is to cover up UK complicity in rendition and torture. The bill is an affront to the open justice on which this country rightly prides itself and, above all, it is an affront to human dignity.”

The right to a fair trial is no longer a civil right but a civil maybe. In this case, so is torture and kidnapping by the state, as the state has deemed it necessary to protect its actions against laws that have protected its citizens for centuries. The American administration finds kidnap, rendering and torture to their liking – it still doesn’t make it right or lawful no matter how you argue otherwise. One should not forget that GCHQ were caught spying on client/legal privilege in these very same cases – also illegal and a clear breach of civil liberty.

George Monbiot recently wrote – “Trump’s extraordinary plan to cut federal spending by $10.5tn was drafted by the Heritage Foundation (a corporate ThinkTank), which called it a “blueprint for a new administration”. Vought and Gray, who moved on to Trump’s team from Heritage, are now turning this blueprint into his first budget. This will, if passed, inflict devastating cuts on healthcare, social security, legal aid, financial regulation and environmental protections; eliminate programmes to prevent violence against women, defend civil rights and fund the arts; and will privatise the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Trump, as you follow this story, begins to look less like a president and more like an intermediary, implementing an agenda that has been handed down to him.”

The Snoopers Charter, The Trade Union Bill, The Heath & Social Care Act and many more pieces of legislation implemented in a drip, drip fashion is simply the growing attack from all shades of the political sphere on established laws made for the good of the community that benefits big business.

Henry Porter, one of the organisers of the Convention on Modern Liberty, said that there was “little doubt that there is a crisis of liberty in Britain”.

Shami Chakrabarti, former head of Liberty once said in 2009 “This attack on our freedoms under this government threatens us all.” She is now in the House of Lords and “sold out” on our civil liberties after it emerged that Labour would abstain on a key vote on the Investigatory Powers Bill that will definitely affect us all and benefit big money.

This is the road Britain is heading down because government officials lost control to their corporate paymasters a few years back just as they did four decades ago in America. The difference was that Britain had some sort of shield provided in large part by the EU. Corporations see Civil Rights, Civil Liberties and Human Rights as an obstruction, hence Theresa May’s confirmation that Human Right’s Laws will be replaced.

The Americanisation of Britain is now in its final stage. Individualism is to reign. Social democracy is coming to an end – the rule of law to be determined by corporations. Far from ‘taking back our country’, we are now going to hand it on a platter to the corporations.

Posted in UKComments Off on BREXIT: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights to Become “Civil Maybe’s”